Private Pilots Wanted to Fly Simulator (Paid Research)

tlglenn

tlglenn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,064
Location
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Display Name
Ted
Home Airfield
KTUS, AZ67
www.aopa.org

Private pilots sought to fly sim for science

Pilots holding an FAA private pilot certificate can participate in a one-day paid FAA study supporting aviation safety.
www.aopa.org

From the job posting: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4174189536/


Job Requirements:

1. Pilots must hold an FAA private pilot certificate.

2. Pilots must hold a current Class 3 FAA medical certificate or higher.

3. Pilots must have performed 3 takeoffs and 3 landings in the previous 6 months, with proof of takeoff and landings provided.

4. Because this study includes a simulated flight task in a fixed-wing airplane flight simulator, recent flight experience must be in an airplane.

a. Pilots do not meet inclusion criteria if their 6 months currency is based on operations in any of the following aircraft: powered-lift, rotorcraft, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachute, glider, lighter-than-air, UAS.

5. To obtain a relatively homogenous pilot sample in terms of training and flight experience, pilots with a student pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, flight instructor certificate, airline transport pilot certificate, or remote pilot certificate are not eligible for this study.

6. Additional ratings and endorsements such as an instrument rating, multiengine rating, seaplane rating, tailwheel airplane endorsement, complex airplane endorsement, high-performance endorsement, glider endorsement, high-altitude endorsement are not eligible for this study.

7. Pilots must be at least 18 years of age – No maximum age restrictions.
 
tlglenn said:
www.aopa.org

Private pilots sought to fly sim for science

Pilots holding an FAA private pilot certificate can participate in a one-day paid FAA study supporting aviation safety.
www.aopa.org

From the job posting: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4174189536/


Job Requirements:

1. Pilots must hold an FAA private pilot certificate.

2. Pilots must hold a current Class 3 FAA medical certificate or higher.

3. Pilots must have performed 3 takeoffs and 3 landings in the previous 6 months, with proof of takeoff and landings provided.

4. Because this study includes a simulated flight task in a fixed-wing airplane flight simulator, recent flight experience must be in an airplane.

a. Pilots do not meet inclusion criteria if their 6 months currency is based on operations in any of the following aircraft: powered-lift, rotorcraft, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachute, glider, lighter-than-air, UAS.

5. To obtain a relatively homogenous pilot sample in terms of training and flight experience, pilots with a student pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, recreational pilot certificate, commercial pilot certificate, flight instructor certificate, airline transport pilot certificate, or remote pilot certificate are not eligible for this study.

6. Additional ratings and endorsements such as an instrument rating, multiengine rating, seaplane rating, tailwheel airplane endorsement, complex airplane endorsement, high-performance endorsement, glider endorsement, high-altitude endorsement are not eligible for this study.

7. Pilots must be at least 18 years of age – No maximum age restrictions.
Click to expand...

#5 and #6 pretty much rule out a lot of prospectives. I think I almost have all of #6, except seaplane and glider.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why is that strange?
Click to expand...
IME, most pilots who stay active and current after getting their PP-SEL, get additional certificates or ratings sooner or later. So it seems strange to look for pilots who stay active and current but never did that. But perhaps not strange if they're looking for relatively new pilots.
 
MRC01 said:
IME, most pilots who stay active and current after getting their PP-SEL, get additional certificates or ratings sooner or later. So it seems strange to look for pilots who stay active and current but never did that. But perhaps not strange if they're looking for relatively new pilots.
Click to expand...
They’re looking for pilots who don’t have additional ratings/endorsements, regardless of time. There are plenty of active Private Pilots who meet these criteria, Sammy of whom have been flying for years.

It’s much like the study the ASF did in the 50s (that the FAA seems to have largely ignored, IMO) where they tested pilots with no instrument training or experience, some of whom were well over 1000 hours total time.
 
midwestpa24 said:
They are looking for an active private pilot with Class 3 medical that has never received any additional certificates or endorsements ever. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it will be a relatively small pool of candidates.
Click to expand...
I think there will be plenty there.
 
Daleandee said:
To paraphrase a recent campaign saying, "I have no idea what they are looking for, and I'm not certain they do either" ... :biggrin:
Click to expand...
It literally says what they're looking for: " [A] relatively homogenous pilot sample in terms of training and flight experience."

They're reducing the variables they have to account for.
 
MRC01 said:
IME, most pilots who stay active and current after getting their PP-SEL, get additional certificates or ratings sooner or later. So it seems strange to look for pilots who stay active and current but never did that. But perhaps not strange if they're looking for relatively new pilots.
Click to expand...
Not strange at all, it depends on what circles you move in. I've been flying for nearly 50 years, 1000 hours, and never had any interest in any additional certificates or ratings except maybe seaplane or glider someday. The same is true of many of my flying friends.

I would qualify for the study except that I don't have a current medical, I'm currently a PP "exercising sport pilot privileges".

Maybe they're studying how non instrument rated pilots with no medical issues fare in some specific scenario. The cynic in me suspects that they have some particular agenda or theory they're crafting a study to prove.
 
Dana said:
I would qualify for the study except that I don't have a current medical, I'm currently a PP "exercising sport pilot privileges".
Click to expand...
Don't you have a tailwheel endorsement? That's also disqualifying.
 
Lindberg said:
It literally says what they're looking for: " [A] relatively homogenous pilot sample in terms of training and flight experience."
They're reducing the variables they have to account for.
Click to expand...
In theory, maybe. But they could get pilots having 50, and 5,000 hours of experience. That doesn't sound like controlling for experience.

That said, one might say that a pilot with 5,000 hours who never got any additional ratings certs doesn't really have 5,000 hours, but has 100 hours repeated 50 times over. In that light, maybe they are controlling for experience.
 
MRC01 said:
In theory, maybe. But they could get pilots having 50, and 5,000 hours of experience. That doesn't sound like controlling for experience.
Click to expand...
They’re reducing the variables, not eliminating them. Depending upon what the goal of the study is, maybe it doesn’t matter, or maybe they have a formula of some kind that accounts for flight time and/or years of flying experience.
 
asicer said:
a tailwheel endorsement? That's also disqualifying.
Click to expand...
That one is funny. I don't have a tailwheel endorsement because I logged tailwheel time before whatever the magic date was (learned to fly in a Cessna 120, current ride is a tailwheel) - so......:dunno:
 
asicer said:
Don't you have a tailwheel endorsement? That's also disqualifying.
Click to expand...
Nope, never needed one.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That one is funny. I don't have a tailwheel endorsement because I logged tailwheel time before whatever the magic date was (learned to fly in a Cessna 120, current ride is a tailwheel) - so......:dunno:
Click to expand...
Yup. I think my Stearman time back then also exempts me from the high performance endorsement, too, not that I'm likely to need it...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That one is funny. I don't have a tailwheel endorsement because I logged tailwheel time before whatever the magic date was (learned to fly in a Cessna 120, current ride is a tailwheel) - so......:dunno:
Click to expand...
Dana said:
Nope, never needed one.

Yup. I think my Stearman time back then also exempts me from the high performance endorsement, too, not that I'm likely to need it...
Click to expand...
Letter of the law vs spirit of the law... they may still disqualify you.
 
Dana said:
The cynic in me suspects that they have some particular agenda or theory they're crafting a study to prove.
Click to expand...
That's the scientific method.
MRC01 said:
In theory, maybe. But they could get pilots having 50, and 5,000 hours of experience. That doesn't sound like controlling for experience.
Click to expand...
Maybe hours is the independent variable they want to test. Or maybe if it's the only significant variable, is easier to do the regression.
 
Lindberg said:
Maybe hours is the independent variable they want to test. Or maybe if it's the only significant variable, is easier to do the regression.
Click to expand...
But if, as noted by others, the pilots who fit the stated criteria, particularly localized in the higher-experience end of the distribution, are themselves a minority and atypical of those with similar experience levels, the extrapolation will be weak at best.
 
DJTorrente said:
But if, as noted by others, the pilots who fit the stated criteria, particularly localized in the higher-experience end of the distribution, are themselves a minority and atypical of those with similar experience levels, the extrapolation will be weak at best.
Click to expand...
“A minority” doesn’t necessarily mean “not enough,” and “atypical” isn’t necessarily a negative.
 
DJTorrente said:
But if, as noted by others, the pilots who fit the stated criteria, particularly localized in the higher-experience end of the distribution, are themselves a minority and atypical of those with similar experience levels, the extrapolation will be weak at best.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on what hypothesis they're testing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
They’re reducing the variables, not eliminating them. Depending upon what the goal of the study is, maybe it doesn’t matter, or maybe they have a formula of some kind that accounts for flight time and/or years of flying experience.
Click to expand...
They could shut their eyes so that the room would be empty.
 
Hmm, FAA doesn't know that Glider is a Category RATING?

I have none of the endorsements, but only because I grandfathered in. :D
 
Pinecone said:
Hmm, FAA doesn't know that Glider is a Category RATING?
Click to expand...
At the sport pilot level, aircraft categories are by endorsement, not ratings. A Private pilot can get an endorsement to fly a light-sport glider (pretty much all gliders, I'd imagine) subject to all the usual sport pilot limitations. "Private pilot exercising Sport pilot privileges."
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Hmmm, wonder why class 3 medical is required in a simulator?
Click to expand...
Maybe they figured a basic med pilot is unlikely to make it through their - 8 hour day?

I wonder why it’s all in one day (are they learning a new simulator device/product or the new system takes joe pilot to jet ace in a few hours etc )
 
Dana said:
At the sport pilot level, aircraft categories are by endorsement, not ratings. A Private pilot can get an endorsement to fly a light-sport glider (pretty much all gliders, I'd imagine) subject to all the usual sport pilot limitations. "Private pilot exercising Sport pilot privileges."
Click to expand...
But the way they wrote it, it would not apply to someone with a PP Glider rating.
 
Yes. And they state that you don't qualify with a glider ENDORSEMENT, but do not say that you don't if you have a glider RATING on your PP.
 
It also doesn't specifically say anything about helicopter ratings.

There's a lot of things it doesn't say. None of which support your contention that, "FAA doesn't know that Glider is a Category RATING?" As pointed out, it can be a rating or an endorsement.
 
Pinecone said:
Yes. And they state that you don't qualify with a glider ENDORSEMENT, but do not say that you don't if you have a glider RATING on your PP.
Click to expand...
Correct…but they do state that your currency can’t be based on your glider rating. So apparently they don’t care about that rating, only the endorsement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top